ILNews

Opinions Dec. 1, 2010

December 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William R.D. Britt v. State of Indiana
02A03-1004-CR-253
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Britt’s counsel to introduce evidence of his brother Brandon’s prior robbery conviction.

Robert Segar v. State of Indiana
49A02-1003-CR-269
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Segar’s detention following an investigatory stop wasn’t supported by the requisite reasonable suspicion.

David E. Stutsman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1003-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of two or more chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Elizabeth Littlefield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-266
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Demond Withers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Michael Calhoun v. State of Indiana (NFP)
25A05-1003-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms partial denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence and denial of motion to correct error.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT